Acquitted vs not guilty

seagull

I always thought that there was a difference in meaning between these two terms. Am I wrong on that? I thought the difference was along the lines of

- Acquitted - you are found completely innocent, and essentially should be viewed as if you were never charged.
- Not guilty - the case against you was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt

amcalester

They mean the same thing.

The issue is where the defendant has been found not guilty and people say that the defendant has been proven innocent, which is not the case.

If a defendant has been found Not Guilty then it has not been proven that he/she is guilty, that does not mean he/she has been proven innocent.

Cyrus

amcalester wrote: »

They mean the same thing.

The issue is where the defendant has been found not guilty and people say that the defendant has been proven innocent, which is not the case.

If a defendant has been found Not Guilty then it has not been proven that he/she is guilty, that does not mean he/she has been proven innocent.

you don't need to be proven innocent as there is a presumption of innocence.

amcalester

Cyrus wrote: »

you don't need to be proven innocent as there is a presumption of innocence.

Of course but I never said anyone had to be proven innocent.

Cyrus

amcalester wrote: »

Of course but I never said anyone had to be proven innocent.

no you said it doesn't mean they have been proven innocent, my point is that there isn't any need due to the aforementioned presumption

amcalester

There's no need but they still can't claim to have been proven innocent, yes that presumption was always there but failure to prove a position does not prove the opposite.

Anyway I only wrote that in response to the OP's line

Acquitted - you are found completely innocent

As far as I know there's no degrees of innocence, one is either guilty or not.

Victor

Mentally, we sometimes don't register words like "not". This can sometimes result in "not guilty" being typed or spoken as "guilty". This has defamation and/or administration of justive consequences. Hence the media prefers to use the word "acquit".

Note that Scotland has an additional verdict of "not proven" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven

Cyrus

amcalester wrote: »

There's no need but they still can't claim to have been proven innocent, yes that presumption was always there but failure to prove a position does not prove the opposite.

Anyway I only wrote that in response to the OP's line

As far as I know there's no degrees of innocence, one is either guilty or not.

no one needs to claim to be proven innocent, unless they are guilty they are innocent.

coylemj

seagull wrote: »

I always thought that there was a difference in meaning between these two terms. Am I wrong on that?

Short answer: Yes.

'Acquitted' is a term you will see in the media - so and so was acquitted by a jury of a charge of xxx.

Earlier, the foreman of the jury will have handed a piece of paper to the registrar with 'not guilty' written against the charge.

That's the answer to your question. There is no 'degree' of not guilty, it's a straight binary decision for guilty or not guilty.

amcalester

Cyrus wrote: »

no one needs to claim to be proven innocent, unless they are guilty they are innocent.

You keep replying to things I didn't say so I'm going to leave it at that.

I was merely trying to expand on what I thought was the source of the OP's confusion.

cruizer101

Cyrus wrote: »

no one needs to claim to be proven innocent, unless they are guilty they are innocent.

But there are more than just the two options

1 Guilty and found guilty
2 Guilty and found not guilty
3 Innocent and found guilty
4 Innocent and found not guilty

Eric Cartman

Cyrus wrote: »

you don't need to be proven innocent as there is a presumption of innocence.

unless its on twitter and youre a rugby player who likes threesomes it seems...

splinter65

cruizer101 wrote: »

But there are more than just the two options

1 Guilty and found guilty
2 Guilty and found not guilty
3 Innocent and found guilty
4 Innocent and found not guilty

In law you are either guilty or innocent.
That’s all that matters.

hullaballoo

The presumption of innocence means you are innocent until proven guilty.

That means if you are not proven to be guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, you are innocent.

Cyrus

amcalester wrote: »

You keep replying to things I didn't say so I'm going to leave it at that.

I was merely trying to expand on what I thought was the source of the OP's confusion.

i dont think thats fair but so be it

Mr. Incognito

Cyrus wrote: »

i dont think thats fair but so be it

"Fair" is a subjective moral question

It has no place in the Law which are a series of objective legal questions.

The media frenzy and consequental stupidity, puff pieces, ignorance, prejudice and misinformation is exactly why we have reporting restrictions which the media has ignored and continued to ignore to cynically use the accussed and accusser to garnish attention, circulation and ultimately advertising revenue.

I see that the media has brought an application on Monday next in the North to be able to serialise the trial to sell more opinions

Cyrus

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

"Fair" is a subjective moral question

It has no place in the Law which are a series of objective legal questions.

The media frenzy and consequental stupidity, puff pieces, ignorance, prejudice and misinformation is exactly why we have reporting restrictions which the media has ignored and continued to ignore to cynically use the accussed and accusser to garnish attention, circulation and ultimately advertising revenue.

i was replying to the poster who thinks i am twisting his/her words,

nothing beyond that

for the record i agree with you

begbysback

If you are found not guilty then you are acquitted.

Samuel T. Cogley

seagull wrote: »

I always thought that there was a difference in meaning between these two terms. Am I wrong on that? I thought the difference was along the lines of

- Acquitted - you are found completely innocent, and essentially should be viewed as if you were never charged.
- Not guilty - the case against you was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt

Scotland had a 'not proven' verdict which is something along the lines of what you're thinking - I think. Interesting aside anyway.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Samuel T. Cogley

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Typo *has

GM228

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Scotland still has the "not proven" verdict.

I believe there is currently a study which is considering the guilty, not guilty and not proven verdicts with a view to dropping the not proven verdict following comments by the Scottish Justice Committee that the verdict was on "borrowed time".

Samuel T. Cogley

GM228 wrote: »

I believe there is currently a study which is considering the guilty, not guilty and not proven verdicts with a view to dropping the not proven verdict following comments by the Scottish Justice Committee that the verdict was on "borrowed time".

I have to say I prefer the 'Proven' 'Not Proven' verdicts to guilty/not guilty. I think it focuses the jury on their role.

NUTLEY BOY

I think that this is what Lord Denning described as a lawyer's quibble.

Not guilty means that the prosecution failed to reach the required standard of proof.

All people who are innocent are not guilty.
Some people found not guilty are not innocent.
An acquittal is not accompanied by a certificate of innocence.

If acquitted you are deemed innocent but not so declared officially.

Cyrus

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

If acquitted you are deemed innocent but not so declared officially.

again i come back to presumption of innocence, no one needs to officially declare you innocent because you were anyway

GM228

I think with regards the presumption of innocence, the vital point is that it simply states the accused must not prove their innocence, rather the prosecution must prove their guilt in accordance with law, that is not the same as saying the accused is innocent, but has that general effect.

Guy:Incognito

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I have to say I prefer the 'Proven' 'Not Proven' verdicts to guilty/not guilty. I think it focuses the jury on their role.

I dont.

If you get taken to court and charged with rape and it's "not proven", many more people are going to assume you are guilty than with a not guilty verdict imo.

seagull

I thought Scotland had the "Not proven" in addition to the "not guilty".

GM228

seagull wrote: »

I thought Scotland had the "Not proven" in addition to the "not guilty".

They do, they have 3 verdicts - guilty, not guilty or not proven.

ted1

amcalester wrote: »

There's no need but they still can't claim to have been proven innocent, yes that presumption was always there but failure to prove a position does not prove the opposite.

Anyway I only wrote that in response to the OP's line

Acquitted - you are found completely innocent

As far as I know there's no degrees of innocence, one is either guilty or not.

No one is ever proven innocent.
I have never meet you but I could go to a police station and say “amcalester assaulted me” if it went to court you would never be proven innocent, you will be declared not guilty.

Victor

ted1 wrote: »

No one is ever proven innocent.

Guilty verdicts that are overturned?

coylemj

ted1 wrote: »

No one is ever proven innocent.

Victor wrote: »

Guilty verdicts that are overturned?

A jury verdict of guilty is almost never overturned on appeal based on the fact that the appeal court simply disagreed with the verdict. It's not the role of appeal court judges to decide the facts as an alternative jury in a second run of the trial.

When a jury verdict is overturned, it's usually because of a legal defect (typically something said or not said) in the judge's charge to the jury or because one side's proposed evidence was admitted or not admitted. In which case you might have some difficulty declaring that you were 'proved innocent'.

The nearest the appeal court gets to deciding based on the facts is where one of the grounds of appeal is that the judge should not have allowed the charge to go to the jury for lack of a solid prosecution case. In that case and if that ground of appeal is successful, the appeal court can declare the conviction as 'unsafe', effectively declaring that no jury could convict based on the evidence.

Whether that means the accused was 'proved innocent' would probably depend on who you're asking.

4ensic15

A person may well be proven innocent. DNA evidence, other forensic or alibi evidence may be so strong that it is a certainty that the person charged did not commit the crime. It is just that the verdict will not be innocent, it will just be not guilty.

Guy:Incognito

4ensic15 wrote: »

A person may well be proven innocent. DNA evidence, other forensic or alibi evidence may be so strong that it is a certainty that the person charged did not commit the crime. It is just that the verdict will not be innocent, it will just be not guilty.

No one remembers how the match was won in the history books , just the result.

4ensic15

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

No one remembers how the match was won in the history books , just the result.

Your point being?

Billgirlylegs

4ensic15 wrote: »

A person may well be proven innocent. DNA evidence, other forensic or alibi evidence may be so strong that it is a certainty that the person charged did not commit the crime. It is just that the verdict will not be innocent, it will just be not guilty.

The point of a court case is to address a charge that one or more person committed an unlawful act. The burden is on the prosecution to eliminate doubt that they did it, or refute their denial that they did it..

If they are successful, the accused, is deemed to be guilty and is subject to appropriate punishment.

The only burden that exists in the justice system, is that the prosecution must prove the accused is guilty.
If they don’t,the verdict is not guilty.( in the opinion of a jury of their peers)
Found not guilty, therefore is not the same as innocent

Acquit iused as in “Accquitted of the charge”’ is not strictly correct, in the context of a criminal case. I would agree with the post suggesting it is a media thing to avoid the possibility of omitting “not” from “ not guilty”

4ensic15

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

The point of a court case is to address a charge that one or more person committed an unlawful act. The burden is on the prosecution to eliminate doubt that they did it, or refute their denial that they did it..

If they are successful, the accused, is deemed to be guilty and is subject to appropriate punishment.

The only burden that exists in the justice system, is that the prosecution must prove the accused is guilty.
If they don’t,the verdict is not guilty.( in the opinion of a jury of their peers)
Found not guilty, therefore is not the same as innocent

Acquit iused as in “Accquitted of the charge”’ is not strictly correct, in the context of a criminal case. I would agree with the post suggesting it is a media thing to avoid the possibility of omitting “not” from “ not guilty”

Talk about stating the bleeding obvious. None of that means a defendant can't be proven innocent.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

Talk about stating the bleeding obvious. None of that means a defendant can't be proven innocent.

It is not possible in law for a court to "prove" innocence.

There is a distinction between "innocent" and "not guilty", it's important to note that this distinction is relevant because of the way the criminal justice system works.

The burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove that the accused committed the crime. The reality is that our courts are not really concerned with if a person committed a crime or not, rather the issue is whether or not the prosecutor can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime.

Remember Blackstone's ratio - "all presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer", the criminal justice system agrees that wrongful imprisonment/punishment of an innocent person is unacceptable, and so we have the presumption of innocence.

As a result of the presumption the court doesn't place a burden on the accused to prove their innocence, rather there is a requirement for the prosecutor prove the accused guilty, the Golden Thread. If the prosecutor can't do that, then the defendant is "not guilty", and there's no need even to discuss whether the defendant is in fact innocent or not, nor is there a provision in law which allows for such.

In law "not guilty" simply means the prosecutor failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and nothing more - the accused is not culpable for the crime they are accused of.

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

It is not possible in law for a court to "prove" innocence.

There is a distinction between "innocent" and "not guilty", it's important to note that this distinction is relevant because of the way the criminal justice system works.

The burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove that the accused committed the crime. The reality is that our courts are not really concerned with if a person committed a crime or not, rather the issue is whether or not the prosecutor can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime.

Remember Blackstone's ratio - "all presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer", the criminal justice system agrees that wrongful imprisonment/punishment of an innocent person is unacceptable, and so we have the presumption of innocence.

As a result of the presumption the court doesn't place a burden on the accused to prove their innocence, rather there is a requirement for the prosecutor prove the accused guilty, the Golden Thread. If the prosecutor can't do that, then the defendant is "not guilty", and there's no need even to discuss whether the defendant is in fact innocent or not, nor is there a provision in law which allows for such.

In law "not guilty" simply means the prosecutor failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and nothing more - the accused is not culpable for the crime they are accused of.

It is possible, in law, to prove anything. The issue in this thread is the meaning of the verdict. You are confusing the facts proven with the verdict. A judge could well direct a jury to bring in a not guilty verdict on the basis that the accused has in fact proven himself innocent.

Peregrinus

4ensic15 wrote: »

It is possible, in law, to prove anything. The issue in this thread is the meaning of the verdict. You are confusing the facts proven with the verdict. A judge could well direct a jury to bring in a not guilty verdict on the basis that the accused has in fact proven himself innocent.

I don't think a judge will ever give a direction on that basis. The direction will always be on the basis of whether the prosecution has discharged the burden of proving guilt.

That's not to say, obviously, that evidence which is given in the course of the trial can't tend to satisfy observers, the public, etc, that the accused is beyond all doubt wholly innocent of the crime with which he is charged. That can happen, though it has to be said that outside of Hollywood movies it's a fairly rare event.

4ensic15

Her is an example of a Defendant proving his innocence rather than relying on a prosecution failing to prove its case.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/taxi-driver-cleared-of-taking-tourists-for-a-ride-after-proving-his-longer-route-to-temple-bar-was-cheaper-36789726.html

RabbleRouser2k

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

No one remembers how the match was won in the history books , just the result.

Unless it's the 'Hand of God' moment by Maradona. The English never got over that.

Over here, they tried to do similar with the 'Hand of Frog'...until it was revealed the FAI took a massive payout to stay quiet.

Peregrinus

4ensic15 wrote: »

Her is an example of a Defendant proving his innocence rather than relying on a prosecution failing to prove its case.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/taxi-driver-cleared-of-taking-tourists-for-a-ride-after-proving-his-longer-route-to-temple-bar-was-cheaper-36789726.html

He didn't prove he was innocent (in the moral sense). Although the route he chose was in fact cheaper, this was only established after he made the choice. It's still possible that he choose it knowing it to be longer in distance, and assuming (incorrectly, as it turned out) that it would result in a higher fare.

Of course, it's not very likely that he made the choice on this basis, but he didn't prove that he didn't. He didn't have to prove it in order to secure an acquittal.

donegal_man

Surely being found "not guilty" just means that the accused person has been acquitted by a jury of their peers. Therefore the two expressions are essentially interchangeable. I think the word "acquit" only really came into common usage here following the media furor over Johnny Cochran's famous line in the OJ Simpson trial regarding the blood stained glove. "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."

As far as how much proof is required, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond "reasonable" not "all" doubt. For instance Mr. X is found standing over the body of his long time rival with a recently discharged pistol in his hand and tells the investigating officers, "I'm glad I killed Y, I hated him." Now his barrister could try to make the case that he merely said that in panic after finding the victim but how reasonable is such a claim?

4ensic15

Peregrinus wrote: »

He didn't prove he was innocent (in the moral sense). Although the route he chose was in fact cheaper, this was only established after he made the choice. It's still possible that he choose it knowing it to be longer in distance, and assuming (incorrectly, as it turned out) that it would result in a higher fare.

Of course, it's not very likely that he made the choice on this basis, but he didn't prove that he didn't. He didn't have to prove it in order to secure an acquittal.

He admitted that he deliberately chose the longer route in the sense of the distance travelled. He established that the route he chose was the shortest in the sense of the time taken to complete it. The dismissal was on the basis of the judge accepting his construction of the word "shortest".

Peregrinus

4ensic15 wrote: »

He admitted that he deliberately chose the longer route in the sense of the distance travelled. He established that the route he chose was the shortest in the sense of the time taken to complete it. The dismissal was on the basis of the judge accepting his construction of the word "shortest".

Essentially, the issue was whether the statutory requirement to take "the shortest route" meant the driver had to take the route involving the least distance, or could equally be satisfied by taking the route involving the least time. The defendant led evidence showing that on the day in question the route he took had the lower fare, which (given that it involved a greater distance) meant that it must have taken less time. The prosecution didn't, as far as I can see, dispute this. So there was no dispute but that the defendant took the quickest route; the issue was whether this would satisfy the requirement to take the shortest route.

In dismissing the charge, the judge was in effect holding that, yes, the requirement to take the shortest route could be satisfied by taking the route which took the least amount of time.

So the issue here was essentially one of interpretation; what does "shortest route" mean? The defendant won, in the sense that the court accepted that the interpretation he put forward was the correct one. But winning on a point of statutory interpretation is not normally what we would think of as someone "proving his innocence".

I think to say that a defendant proved his innocence would suggest something like proving that he didn't do the acts alleged against him. Here, the defendant did do the acts alleged against him, but the court agreed with him that those acts were not criminal.

4ensic15

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think to say that a defendant proved his innocence would suggest something like proving that he didn't do the acts alleged against him. Here, the defendant did do the acts alleged against him, but the court agreed with him that those acts were not criminal.

Therefore he proved he was innocent of the offence charged.

Peregrinus

4ensic15 wrote: »

Therefore he proved he was innocent of the offence charged.

Yes, but not of the conduct alleged.

I'm not sure that this is the kind of resounding triumphant "proof of innocence" that we are discussing here. On this view, everyone who secures an acquittal by arguing that the particular statute under which is he charged does not criminalise to his acts has "proved his innocence" but in many cases (though not this one, I agree) the public view will be that he was acquitted on a technicality.

For example, the late Pat O'Connor, who was election agent to Charlie Haughey, was acquitted of electoral offences on the basis that the acts alleged against him - apply for a second ballot paper, after having obtained, filled out and cast a previous ballot paper at a different polling station - did not constitute the offence of attempting to cast a second vote, because there was no allegation or proof that he had completed the first ballot paper in a way which constituted a valid vote. He was acquitted on the basis that merely applying for a second ballot paper having filled out and cast the first was not (then) an offence, but very few people would say that he had "proved his innocence".

4ensic15

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but not of the conduct alleged.

I'm not sure that this is the kind of resounding triumphant "proof of innocence" that we are discussing here. On this view, everyone who secures an acquittal by arguing that the particular statute under which is he charged does not criminalise to his acts has "proved his innocence" but in many cases (though not this one, I agree) the public view will be that he was acquitted on a technicality.

For example, the late Pat O'Connor, who was election agent to Charlie Haughey, was acquitted of electoral offences on the basis that the acts alleged against him - apply for a second ballot paper, after having obtained, filled out and cast a previous ballot paper at a different polling station - did not constitute the offence of attempting to cast a second vote, because there was no allegation or proof that he had completed the first ballot paper in a way which constituted a valid vote. He was acquitted on the basis that merely applying for a second ballot paper having filled out and cast the first was not (then) an offence, but very few people would say that he had "proved his innocence".

We are discussing the general proposition of whether a defendant can prove himself innocent. In the majority of cases there is an acquittal but there is no reason why, in principle, a defendant can't prove himself innocent. The taxi driver proved himself innocent of the charge alleged against him. It may not happen often, but it can happen.

Peregrinus

4ensic15 wrote: »

We are discussing the general proposition of whether a defendant can prove himself innocent. In the majority of cases there is an acquittal but there is no reason why, in principle, a defendant can't prove himself innocent. The taxi driver proved himself innocent of the charge alleged against him. It may not happen often, but it can happen.

It can happen (as I said earlier) but I don't think this is an example. Proof refers to facts, established by evidence. But the taxi driver won on a point of law - namely, the correct interpretation of the statute, and that's established by argument, not evidence, and there is no "proof" involved.

The taxi driver would have "proven his innocence" if, e.g., he led evidence that on the day in question he was in New York delivering a public lecture in physiology to 150 people who could all testify as to his presence there, and so couldn't possibly have been driving a taxi in Dublin, and so must have been charged in error. More generally, he would "prove his innocence" by leading evidence that shows irrefutably that he did not do the acts alleged in the charge.

But arguing a point of statutory interpretation - even arguing it successfully - is not "proving" anything.

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

It can happen (as I said earlier) but I don't think this is an example. Proof refers to facts, established by evidence. But the taxi driver won on a point of law - namely, the correct interpretation of the statute, and that's established by argument, not evidence, and there is no "proof" involved.

The taxi driver would have "proven his innocence" if, e.g., he led evidence that on the day in question he was in New York delivering a public lecture in physiology to 150 people who could all testify as to his presence there, and so couldn't possibly have been driving a taxi in Dublin, and so must have been charged in error. More generally, he would "prove his innocence" by leading evidence that shows irrefutably that he did not do the acts alleged in the charge.

But arguing a point of statutory interpretation - even arguing it successfully - is not "proving" anything.

Facts have to be established to invoke the point of statutory interpretation. The prosecution had to lead evidence that the shortest journey was not undertaken. They had to prove what journey was in fact taken and then prove that it was not the shortest journey. Evidence of this had to be offered. The Defendant accepted the journey was undertaken but then had to prove that the journey he took was shorter timewise and thus more economical than the journey the prosecution says he should have taken. Only after he proved that did the point of statutory interpretation arise. It took positive evidence from the defendant to bring about the dismissal.